OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD)
Volume 5 Issue 1, November-December 2020 Available Online: www.ijtsrd.com e-ISSN: 2456 – 6470
@ IJTSRD | Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD35908 | Volume – 5 | Issue – 1 | November-December 2020 Page 467
First Development Plan for a Small Offshore Field
Alfitouri Ibrahim Jellah
Oil & Gas Engineering Department, Bani Waleed University, Bani Walid, Libya
ABSTRACT
This work describes the proposed development program for the
accumulations in the virtual Beta field located in Libya offshore. In 2018, the
contractor informed the Management Committee about the Commercial
discovery of Beta-field. This development plan has been prepared for
submission to the Management for its consideration. After collecting all the
available data; including geological data, reservoir data, drilling data,
production data, economical data, and environmental data. The suitable
assumption has been made. All the modules were built with suitable
sensitivities. The important resultswerelaidoutwithsomerecommendations
in each section. Due consideration is paid to the environmental impact and all
the possible use is made of the existing infrastructure.
KEYWORDS: Field, Development Plan; Discovery, Oil, Reservoir Management,
Depletion
How to cite this paper: Alfitouri Ibrahim
Jellah "First Development Plan for a Small
Offshore Field"
Published in
International Journal
of Trend in Scientific
Research and
Development(ijtsrd),
ISSN: 2456-6470,
Volume-5 | Issue-1,
December 2020, pp.467-478, URL:
www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd35908.pdf
Copyright © 2020 by author(s) and
International Journal ofTrendinScientific
Research and Development Journal. This
is an Open Access
article distributed
under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution
License (CC BY 4.0)
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
INTRODUCTION
Beta-field is located offshore Libya in a waterdepthof 150
m. The structure is defined as Horst and Graben fault
system predominantly orienting in the East-West
direction. The crest of this anticlinal structure is 2550 m
TVD SS with an oil water contact at 3160.5 m TVD SS. The
stratigraphy consists of an old red sandstone reservoir
from the Devonian period andsealingshale atthe topfrom
the Lower Cretaceous period. Between these two periods
lies an unconformity due to continual erosion. This
reservoir is highly fractured with low porosity and low
matrix permeability. It is composed of fluvial sediments
deposited from braided river with multi channels.
The Petrophysical analysis of the various logs from Beta-
field, show a massive column of shaly-sandstonereservoir
with low N/G, high initial water saturations and low
matrix porosities. The reservoir properties of the field
sands are poor, with porosity ranging of 10-13% and
permeability in ranges from 0.06 mD to 12 mD. The core
based wettability analyses indicate that the reservoir
sands are mixed to oil-wet.
Beta-field contains about 605 MMSTB of oil and 216.6
BSCF of associated gas in place within the massive old red
shaly-sandstone reservoir. The oil and gas that can be
economically recovered are estimated to be 157 MMSTB
and 63 BSCF, respectively. Due toits geologicalcomplexity
and associated uncertainties, it has been planned to
develop Beta-field in three phases.
A. Problem Statement
This study is to check the profitability of Beta field after
the information had been received from the contactor
about its commercial recovery.
B. Study Objectives
This study was conducted on Beta field in order to achieve
the following objectives:
Decide whether it is profitable development or not,
what are reserves and the associated uncertainty.
Figure 1 - Seismic Cross Section.
The kind of development plan should be adopted.
The way the uncertainty in the data should be
handled.
IJTSRD35908

International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) @ www.ijtsrd.com eISSN: 2456-6470
Field Description
A. Structural Configuration
Beta-field was formed as a result of several geological
changes. Originally, there was an anticline, then a normal
faults system was generated, over time these started to
subside generating a Horst and Graben fault system which
created the structural trap. Subsequently on the top of the
reservoir, a stratigraphic trap was created by sealing shale
(approximate 430 ft at the thickest point). The shale was
deposited during the Low Cretaceous (140 MM years ago)
and reservoir sandstone was deposited during the Devonian
(416- 359 MM years ago) which showsan unconformity due
to the missing geological timebetweenthetworocks.Thetop
structure map shows 21 normal faults, see figure 1.
B. Fracture Analysis
Origin: The fractures were generated due to stress
during the folding of the anticlinefollowedbythenormal
faults system creating a Horst and Graben sequence, see
Figure 2.
Fracture Network: Open fractures create secondary
Figure 2 - 3D Braided River with sedimentary logs. Ref
W. Beta-9
porosity due to increase of void space, but are strongly
dependent on the scale size theyareexamined.Incertain
areas, on a small scale secondary porosity can increase
total porosity up to a factor of 100%. However, on the
reservoir scale it only increases around 1 % of the total
porosity.
Storage Capacity: Studying the matrixandpermeability
relationship, the matrix has the storage capacity and the
communicating fractures aid the permeability. This
phenomenon has been clearly demonstrated by
calculating the ratio between the permeability obtained
from the well test(K wt) andthe permeability measured
in the core (K cl).
C. Reservoir Description
GeologyThe braided riversystemconsistedofanetwork
of small channels separated by sandy or braid bars. As
there had been had a tropical desert climate and the
weather was more arid with occasional heavy rains
causing dramatically variations in channel depths,
channel velocity and sediment loads. This climate cycle
was repeated during 150 million years resulting in new
channels with low or high energy. Figure 3 shows a 3D
braided river with different sedimentary logs.
Petro physics and Reservoir Fluids The available data
for estimating the petro physical properties for include
core data and wireline logs. Table 2,lists thespecificlogs
used for the analysis of the petro physical properties. All
the exploration wells were drilled vertically except well
Beta-6. Wire line log data was available for all six
Exploration/Appraisal wells while the core data was
available from wells Beta-2,Beta-3andBeta-5.Thecores
were depth matched to the logs to ensure proper well
interpretation.
Fluid contacts The oil-water contact (OWC) was
determined from the logs by observing an average
decrease of 4 ohms in resistivity within wells Beta-1,
Beta-2 and Beta-3. From the log interpretation of these
wells the OWC was clearlyestablishedat10450ft,10490
ft and 10510ft MDBRT. The variation in the OWC has
been interpreted as a result of porosity anisotropy and
varying transition zones between the oil and water leg
and not due to compartmentalizationofthereservoir.By
selecting the shallowest OWC of 10450 ft TVD BRT, a
worst-case scenario wasconsidered.Thefreewaterlevel
(FWL) could not be established from the logs due to the
uncertainty in the transition zones. However, for the
STOIIP calculations this uncertainty has been managed
by creating three scenarios that account for the possible
FWL’s. The worst case scenario would be if the FWL was
Figure 3 – Top Structure Map with Highlighted “Known
Area”
right below the deepest known oil at 10360 ft TVD BRT,
the most likely case would have been the OWC at 10450
ft TVD BRT and finally the best case scenario wouldhave
been if the FWL was at the highest known water at
10652 ft TVD BRT.
Porosity It was obtained by comparing porosities from
the different porosity models available in Terrastation
software package. After comparing these models, the
‘Porter model’ was selected as the most representative
for porosity across the whole reservoir section. The
porosity determined from the gamma ray and sonic logs
using Porter model was compared to the manually
calculated values from the logs and the stress corrected
core porosity data, which showed good agreement
between them.
Water saturation was also determined using
Terrastation software package. Again, various models
were compared to determine the most representative
model. The ‘Laminar model’ which uses the porosity,
resistivity and V-shale from logs was then chosen as the
most representative.
Volume of shale was determined using Terrastation
software package. The various models available were
compared to determine the most representative model.

The ‘Density-Sonic model’ which uses the Sonic and the
Bulk Density logs was then chosen as the most
representative for the V-Shale calculations in all the
wells.
Cut off sensitivity analysis was performed on the cut
offs used for the water saturation, V-shale and porosity
in Terrastation to determine its varying effect on the net
pay thickness andselecttheoptimumvalueforeachwell.
The optimum cut off selected was the one which had the
least effect on the net pay thickness. The Cut offs were
varied by 20%, 35% and 50%of the maximumvalueand
from these an optimum cut off value for V-shale, water
saturation and porosity were selected for each well.
Porosity - Permeability Cross Plot was created for
Well-Beta-5, which had the most data available.
Reservoir FluidsThe initial drilling and testing
programmes showed that Beta-field oil is
compositionally homogeneous with similar API gravity.
PVT Study Both surface and sub-surface fluid samples
were collected in wells Beta-1, Beta-2, Beta-3andBeta-5
for testing purposes. Wellhead samples and the
recombined samples were collected at surface. Thirteen
Down hole/surface recombined samples have been
collected andanalyzed for basic blackoilPVTproperties.
The single-phase PCT sample from Beta-2 DST-7andthe
wellhead sample from Beta-2 DST-8 are considered the
most representative of the full field reservoir fluid
properties. As might be expected from the discussions
above, the PVT data also show homogeneity within the
reservoir. Ignoring these unrepresentative samples, oil
samples that are clearly representative of the main oil
column show bubblepointpressuresrangingfrom1340-
1342 psi, bubble point GOR’s of 346-359 scf/stb, bubble
point formation volume factors of 1.299 – 1.322 rb/stb,
API gravities of 31.1-32.2º, and bubble point oil
viscosities ranging from 0.83-0.86 cp.
Wettability and Relative Permeability Limited
number of special core analyses has been conducteddue
the limited time to determine capillary pressures,
wettability, oil/water relative permeability,andresidual
oil saturation. After reaching the residual oil saturation
by forced displacement, the cores were tested for
spontaneous imbibition of oil followed by measurement
of additional oil recovery by forced displacement. The
ratio of spontaneously uptake of oil tothetotaldisplaced
oil gives a wettability index to oil, OWI. The Amott-
Harvey Wettability index was calculated using the two
ratios as: WI = WWI-OWI. All the cores taken at different
depths in Well Beta-5 show a mixed oil-wet reservoir.
Initial water saturations from these cores range 8% to 23%.
Residual oil saturations from these cores range from 22% to
41%. (Figure 4).
However, there are some measurement issues with this low
permeability plug, particularly in the measurement of oil
permeabilities. Note that the end-point Oil relative
permeability is unrealistically high (kro (Swi) >1); which is
physically impossible. Hence the end point rel. perms were
modified to representcorrectdataforsimulationstudies.The
modified rel. perm is as shown in Figure 5. Further SCAL
studies would be performed on therecoveredcoredintervals
during Phase-I that is considered a valuable input before
drawing any further conclusions.
Hydrocarbons in Place
A. Deterministic STOIIP Estimates
The following scenarios have been created to try to quantify
the impact of the uncertainty with the top structure map and
the contours. Case 1 – this has been done by considering the
known area highlighted in blue in figure 6, as the most likely
P50 scenario.
In this area; the contours were then condensed by about 100
m to give P90 scenario, and extended by the same range to
create P10 scenario. Case 2 – the same three P90, P50 and
P10 GRV’s that were calculated for the knownareahavebeen
considered in this case but with the GRV of both the North
and South Flanks added on to each value.
The STOIIP estimates are highlighted in Table 4 below.
B. Uncertainty in STOIIP Estimates
The following is a list of the key uncertainties in the
estimation of STOIIP, and the work already planned which
will help to reduce these uncertainties.
Uncertainty in GRV Estimation - are due to the
uncertainty in seismic time picking of the Top and Base
horizons, position of the main bounding fault, depth
conversion of the time surfaces and Depth of the OWC.
N/G Uncertainty - The reservoir distribution inafluvial
dominated setting is always difficult to establish.
However the well control within the field has helped in
building a reservoir distribution model, which was
confirmed by the results from additional exploration
wells drilled in this area.
Hydrocarbon Saturation - The uncertainties in the
saturation estimates are mainly due to the mixed-oil wet
nature of the reservoir.
Well-5 Rel Perm - 2781.31 m (39.2 md)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Sw (Fraction)
Kro(Fraction)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Krw(Fraction)
Kro
Krw
Well-5 Rel Perm - 2752.45 m (15.2 md)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Sw (Fraction)
Kro(Fraction)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Krw(Fraction)
Kro
Krw
Figure 4 – Rel Perm Curves from SCAL experiments in
Well Beta-5

Well-5 Rel Perm - 3050 m (9 md)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Sw (Fraction)
Kro(Fraction)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Krw(Fraction)
Kro
Krw
Well-5 Rel Perm - 3050 m (9 md)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Sw (Fraction)
Kro(Fraction)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Krw(Fraction)
Kro
Krw
Figure 5 – Rel Perm & Modified Rel Perm Curves for
the most Representative Sample.
Well Performance
A. Production Test Analysis
A total of 14 drill stem tests were performed in Beta-field. In
well Beta-1 DST-3 had a mechanical failure as well DST-2 &3
in well Beta-2. The maximum oil production rate of 7492
BOPD was observed in well Beta-2 (DST-5); interval 9794-
9884 ft MDBRT & 9906-9942 ft MDBRT. The well Beta-5
(DST-1); interval 9462-9823 ft MDBRT also flowed at an
average rate of 7032 BOPD. All other wells flowed at a
significantly lower rate.
The production tests performed in three wellsBeta-1,Beta-2
and Beta-3, along various intervals were aimed to collect
most representative well test data. However due to extreme
heterogeneity along thereservoir,qualitywelltestdatacould
not be acquired. Most of the production tests show an
increase in FBHP during drawdown indicating changingskin
due to well clean up. To cope up with this uncertainty all the
well tests were screened and the most representative have
been analysed.
B. Corrosion
The corrosion level in Beta-field is intermediate, see Table
5.Hence, the use of normal materials like C80, N80 and Cr13
would be quite justifiable.
C. Wax and Asphaltenes
Currently no specific data isavailable on the wax appearance
temperature and the asphaltenes concentration of Beta-field
crude oil. A detailed analysiswould be performed in Phase–I
to highlight any possible issues arising due to presence of
wax and asphaltenes.
The Reservoir Model
A. The Geological Model
The geological modelling wasperformedmodellingdifferent
types of wells and various properties and faults. The
orthonormal system was used for selecting the origin and
the Northing and Easting of the model. The top structure
map shows a lateral extent in the X direction (Easting) of
9800 m and in Y direction (Northing) of about 7275 m. The
model was then digitized from the top structure map to
include the different contours, faults and boundaries.
Reservoir Structure -The current model isbasedon21faults
present in the top structure map which weremodelledusing
zigzag faults. These faults were constructed using vertical
pillars, which were incorporated by joiningthe midpointsof
the fault polygons in order to minimize errors associated
with verticalization.
-400.0
-300.0
-200.0
-100.0
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
700.0
800.0
900.0
1000.0
1100.0
1200.0
1300.0
1400.0
1500.0
1600.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Time (years)
CumNCF
Y Energy Field Cum NCF [$2008] NPV Delay NPV
Figure 6 – Illustrate NCF, NPV and they effect of delay
on NPV
B. Property Modelling
Reservoir properties have been modelled from the data
available from Terrastation as an input to Petrel. The up
scaled log data and original well log data have shown good
correlation for the basic property parameters. A mean value
of 9% for porosity, 7md for permeability and 35% for
average water saturation was obtained from both up scaled
and well logs. The well tops were identified and the OWC
was determined at 3160.5 m TVDSS.
C. Simulation Models
The static geological model was exported to ECLIPSE for
initiation of dynamic simulation. The logs show a very low
matrix permeability and porosity across thereservoirwhich
is in good agreement with the core studies. The main
objective for this full field model was to study the effects of
fracture-matrix constraints, run sensitivities and optimize
well positioning. A total of 4 producers and 2 injectors were
considered for the development of Beta field while taking
into account the various uncertainties. In all the wells
modelled a mechanical skin factor of 5 was assumed as the
best case scenario.
D. Initialization
The model has been initialised with an OWC of 10370 ft.
TVDSS. A datum pressure of 7534.7 psia at a datum depth of
9677.6 ft has been considered for hydrostatic equilibration
of liquids. The reference pressure of 7881 psia at OWC has
been used for initialization of rock and water properties.

E. Model Sensitivities
Natural Depletion Model - A base case with no water
leg was considered to see the effect of compaction
without an aquifer support on the recovery factor.
Initially two cases were run, with two producers
followed by two additional producers. These wells were
placed on the crestal and central location for ease of
quality data gatheringand adequate stand-offfromearly
water encroachments which proved to be optimum for
the drainage of the reservoir.
Aquifer Modelling -Theexistenceofaquiferhasalready
been determined from well testanalysisbuttheextentof
the aquifer is an uncertainty. To deal with this
uncertainty and its effect on recovery a finite numerical
aquifer was attached to the bottom of the reservoir. The
aquifer extents consideredforthismodelwere153*50m
in the X direction and 67*50 m in Y direction, extending
to thrice the size of the reservoir.
F. Main Sensitivities and Results –
Before concluding many factors had to be assessed. Out of
these a few important ones have been short listed and play
an elementary role in determining the reserves and URF of
the reservoir. The sensitivities here have beenclassifiedinto
two main categories:
1. Factors affecting STOIIP:
NTG: An increase in NTG increases the STOIIP while a
decrease automatically decreases the same. Considering
a NTG of 0.67 as our base case for matrix, two more
values has been used to run sensitivities which were
obtained from the petro physical data, see Table 6
Connate watersaturation:Fromtheanalysisoflogdata
& SCAL data no fixed connate water saturation could be
identified for Beta field. As a result a sensitivity has been
carried out for analysing the effect of connate water
saturation on the reserves, see Table 7
2. Factors affecting RF and Water cut:
Fracture Permeability: This is one of the prime and
important factors affecting the recovery andwatercutof
a reservoir. Beta-field reservoir is very heterogeneous
and has channel sandsshowingpermeabilityanisotropy.
Also, the well test data indicate different effective
permeability values at different tested intervals. The
available literature depicts that fracture porosity and
permeability are a function ofthe effective permeability.
In order to see the effects of fracture permeability onthe
reservoir different sensitivities were done, see Table 8.
Relative Permeability: Yet another important
sensitivity is the relative permeability tables governing
the relative oil and water permeabilities at different
water saturations. From the SCAL data 5 sets of relative
permeability tables were obtained. From this data, the
most representative table was chosen for the base case
while the rest were incorporated for sensitivity study.
For the results see Table 9
Faults: The top structure map and the seismic
interpretation show the presence of many faults in the
reservoir. It would be of prime importance to see the
fluid flow across these faults thatwouldhelptoknowthe
nature of faults and transportation path of fluids. This
would help in the later development stage of the field
and would help in justifying well placements. As a result
sensitivities were carried out using different values for
fault multipliers in order to see the effect on the RF &
water cut keeping 0.5 as the base case, see Table 10.
G. Recovery Mechanism
Different recovery mechanisms have been carried out using
the full field simulation model of the Beta field. Natural
depletion with and without aquifer drive has been
investigated using this model. The initial reservoir pressure
is 7881 psig at OWC which is higher than the average bubble
point pressure of 1340 psig. Hence, when producing above
the bubble point pressure, natural depletion to delineate
aquifer drive would be the most attractive and optimum
option in the first couple of years. Simulation runs indicate
that aquifer strength is a very important parameter for
deciding the further development stages, if needed.
H. Alternative Development Plans Considered
Limited data has been acquired until date from the
exploration and the appraisal wells drilled in Beta-field to
decide on a development strategy for this complex field.
Further quality data needs to be acquired in this field to
reduce the current uncertainties. Hence completing the 6
exploration/appraisal wells and acquiring the necessary
data was considered the first option to develop Beta-field.
Management Plan
A. Economic Considerations
The Economic Environment Overview Beta-field location is
in the Mid Libyan Coast in Sirt Basin. This region is generally
considered to be likely a gas area and therefore
infrastructure development has modelled this assumption.
For the purpose of this economic consideration, the
economic environment and economical strategies of Libya
will be the basis for economic assumptions and economic
feasibility analysis.
B. Cash Flow Modelling
To determine the long-term feasibility and profitability of
this project, there is a need to model the cash flow of the
project with a view of determining the base profitability
values of the project. The following base assumptions have
been made and the outcome of these assumptions forms the
input parameters of base case cash flow model.
Base Case Input Parameters
Inflation - The base price inflation for the cash flow
model is 2.5%. This is based on the forecasted Libyan
inflation rate 2.5%.
Oil and Gas Price - The base assumption for oil and gas
price are shown below:
OIL
PRICE
Oil price assumption in nominal terms is us
$88.25/barrel in 2018, $72.13/barrel in
2019, $68.29/barrel in 2020, $64.61/barrel
in 2011 escalating at 2.5% per annum from
the beginning of 2022 onwards.
GAS
PRICE
Gas prices are linked to oil prices with a lag of
three months. the average annualised gas
price in nominal terms is $10.42/mcf in 2018,
$9.45/mcf in 2019, $8.63/mcf in 2020,
$8.19/mcf in 2021, escalating at 2.5% per
annum from the beginning of 2022 onwards
A discount of 10% has been assumed based on the fact that
the API of Beta Field (320).

Production Profile - The base case production profile
for this economic model is the result of the full field
simulation model run on eclipse. However to determine
the economic life of the field, a plot of the revenue and
operating cost / expense with time was done and it was
determinedthattheoperatingcost(2018realterms)will
become higher than the revenue (2018realterms)inthe
23rd year.
Opex and Tariff - The components oftheOperatingCost
include; Annual lease cost for FPSO, Gas pipeline usage
tariff and CO2 and NOx tax. The base assumption for the
lease cost is based on the average of the FPSO lease cost
for field with similar production rates and recoverable
reserves. The tariff for the transport system used in the
base case cash flow model is (NKr 2.0 – 2.2 per Mcf). The
CO2 andNOx tax is also considered asanoperatingcostin
this base case model.
Capex - The Capex of a development project is
dependent on the following factors: Location
peculiarities(remoteness,waterdepthandavailabilityof
infrastructure), Reservoir geology and complexity, fluid
properties (viscosity, numberofphases,impurities).The
following development approaches were considered:
1. Lease FPSO, lay 30 km gas pipeline to the existing
transport system for gas transport, Rent drilling rig
for drilling operations and oil sales Free on Board
(FOB).
2. Build FPSO, lay 30 km gas pipeline to the existing
(FOB).
3. rig for drilling operations and oil sales Free on
Board (FOB).
4. Build Semi Sub for production processing, FSU for
storage and lay 30 km pipeline to the existing
(FOB).
Tax - The base case considered for taxation is same as
described in the economic environmentanalysissection.
Discount Rate - The discountrateemployedforthebase
case is based on the mostlikelycasediscountrate(10%).
Base Case Cash Flow Model
Maximum Capital Outlay (MCO)– Inthiscase,theMCO
for the base case model is USD210.3 million. MCO is the
minimum point on the cumulative cash flow and it
indicates the maximum amount of money to be sourced
external to the project if the project is to survive the
investment phase. It should also be noted that it is not
same as the maximum Capex.
Capex – For this project will be USD518million.Capexis
alsoa measure of investmentsizeandgivesanindication
of the cost of creating a productive unit. In this case it
does not end before production as investment continues
even after production has started.
Pay Back – the Payback for Beta-field base case is 2.5
years. The payback is a measure of how long before
investments are recouped.
Terminal Cash Surplus (TCS) – For the base case is
USD1428 million. It is an indication of the profit to be
made by the project beforetakingintoaccountthecostof
capital and the risk elementsof theinvestment(discount
rate).
Profit to Investment Ratio (PIR) – For the base case is
6.7.
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) – For the base case is
86.5%.
NPV – The NPV for the base case is USD 705Million. The
NPV calculated for the base case is based on 10%
discount rate.
NPVI - The NPVI for the base case is 3.5 and the MCO
Index is 6.8.
Development Plan
Beta-field oil has no unusual or troublesome properties,
especially for water flooding. Beta-field’s high initial
reservoir pressure 7881 psig at OWC, low GOR 358SCF/STB
and low bubble point pressure 1340 psig, means that
pressure maintenance by water flood might not be very
critical at initial stages for reasonable recovery levels.There
is sufficient evidence for these fractures being cemented,
close to the OWC and within the water leg asdiscussedinthe
sections above. Beta-field would be developed in different
phases. The three Phases of development would be as
follows:
A. Phase-I: Natural depletion with 2 producers for initial 4
years.
B. Phase-II: Natural depletion and/or Water-Flooding with
3 additional producers and 3 injectors depending of
success of Phase-I.
C. Phase-III: Use of gas lift for increasing ultimaterecovery
and economic water cut.
Well Optimization
From the production profiles and the simulation studies
done, an estimate of well optimization was established.
Differences in recovery factors along with increase of wells
and increase in water cut were plotted in order to optimize
the number of wells to be used for the development.
A. Base Case Development Plan
Initially in Phase I, a naturaldepletionmechanismwas
adopted. Two deviated wells acting as producers were
placed on the crest and drilled into the northern and the
southern flanks. The reason for the same was the
presence of vertical and high angular fractures in the
reservoir which constitutethemainfluidflowpathways.
Two sensitivities, with and without aquifer were
modelled to see the effect on RF.
Case 1 : 2 producers with NTG = 0.67,Faulttransmissibility
= 0.5, Skin = 5, BHP = 1500 psia (well control),
without aquifer and runtime of 25 years. See Table
12.
Case 2 : 2 producers with NTG = 0.67,Faulttransmissibility
= 0.5, Skin = 5, BHP = 1500 psia (well control), with
aquifer and runtime of 25 years. See Table 13.
Wells Drilling and Work over
For Beta-Field development; it is recommended to use a
second generation Semi-submersible so cost will be lower.
It’s is capable of drilling in water depths of 1000 ft and can
drill up to 25000 ft which is well within the expecteddrilling
targets. The phased drillingprogrammeisplannedthrougha
drill centre with six slots on the seabed having a spacing of
15m between them. The FPSO will be located in such a
position to accommodateanyunplannedwork overswithout
interrupting the production.

A. Pore & Fracture Pressure Prediction
It is assumed the formation above the reservoir is normally
pressured with a pressure gradient of 0.453 psi/ft. An oil
gradient of 0.35 psi/ft is expectedwithinthereservoir which
is over pressured by 2300 psi. For the normally pressured
zone; an overbalance of 150 psi will be maintained while for
the reservoir section it has been decided to maintain an
overbalance of 100 psi to minimize formation damage
(figure 7).
B. Deviation Design
It has been planned to follow a deviated well path with an
angle of 55° to intersect the maximum number of high
angled / vertical fractures and the inter-bedding layers
within the reservoir, while keeping the angle within the
range of wire line services. See figure 8.
Figure 7 - Pore Pressure Profile
A Positive Displacement Motor onthe17-1/2”PDCsteerable
motor assembly will be used to kick off at 6250 ft with a
build up rate of 1.5° / 100 ft to have a 10° angle at the 13-
3/8th casing setting depth (6490 ft) with an azimuth of 180°.
The initial 10° angle is to reduce the severity of the build
angle in the subsequent hole section. At the kick offpointthe
formation is consolidatedsandstonewhichisnotexpectedto
be a troublesome formation. Most essentially, the 10°
inclination would facilitate the 12-1/4” rotary steerable
system in finding the high side of the hole.
The 12-1/4” RSS will be used to build up to 55° at BUR of 2°
/ 100 ft drilled with an azimuth of 180° to a TD of around
9320 ft. The TD for the 12-1/4” section would dependonthe
rate of pressure increase in the transition zone (shale
section), which would be monitored using the MWD to
indicate the over pressured zone.
C. Litho logy
The compositional logs were analysed carefully and the
expected litho logy description was used in choosing the
casing setting depths.
D. Drilling Schedule
Drilling objectives of Phase I:
Establish the reservoir potential of Beta-field by
entering the Southern & Northern Flanks.
Core reservoir section
Complete suite of open hole logs
E. Drill bit Selection
Spud Drilling (9890 ft MD BRT) – While drilling
thissection a one-trip approach will be implemented
using a 17 ½” / 36” hole-opener. Once the TD for this
section is reached the boulder intervals would be wiped
clean to check for ledgesandensurethattheconductoris
run within <1° inclination.
26” Drilling (2663 ft MD BRT) - This interval will be
drilled with a 26” Roller Cone drill bit studded with
tungsten carbide insertcutters. This is consideredbased
on the length of this hole section (1673 ft), the cost of
this type of bit (lower) and no hole size constraints. The
drill string is designed to accommodate a small offset
angle as to facilitate scrapping action and increase the
drilling rate in the softer formations
17-1/2” Drilling (6595 ft MD BRT) - This interval will
be drilled with a 17-1/2” PDC steerable motor assembly
(SMA). The PDC has been selected due to its extended
drillinglife (no moving components)anditissuitablefor
drilling in hard, non –sticky formations without bit
balling. The SMA will be in a rotary mode until it drills
vertically up to 6100ft. It will then be switched to its
sliding mode withcontinuous mud circulation througha
PDM driving the drillbit.
Figure 8 – Deviated Well Profile
be drilled with a PDC Rotary Steerable System. The PDC
bit is selected to achieve longer drilled intervals,
lowering the amount of trip time and reducing the
chances of failure due to no moving components. It also
gives proper hole cleaning benefits allowing rotation of
the string while building up at 2°/100ft up towards 55°.
again be drilled with a PDC Rotary Steerable System for
the same reasons as discussed in the previous section.
However, the most important selection criteria for RSS
for this hole section was to allow flexibility in
maintaining correct path and deviation to reach the
target zone in the Southern Flank.
F. Casing Design
The current calculation for the burst and collapse loads are
based on the fluid properties that are present in the
reservoir (discussed in reservoirengineering)andthefuture
possibility of gas lifting, see table 14. However if phasethree
is delayed then a possible work over and a re-evaluation of
the casing integrity would be expected.

Run and Cement 30” Casing (984 ft MD BRT) - This
procedure could have problems getting conductor to
bottom due to bottom fill and/or boulders falling /
protruding into the hole. The drill pipe stringer would
help on reducing the pumping time with lower
displacement volumes and no chance of packers
becoming stuck. However, “bridging off” in the annulus
space might be an issue as large compressive loads may
cause the conductor to collapse. The Top of Cement
(TOC) will be to the seabedbetweenthetemporaryguide
base (TGB) and permanent guide base (PGB). An excess
of 100% of the gauge hole annular volume is planned to
ensure good returns to seabed since this is a major load
bearing element in the wellhead system.
Run and Cement 20” Casing (2658 ft MD BRT)- The
20” surface casing will be cemented using single stage
method as low pump pressures are expected at this
shallow depth. The TOC will be till seabed between the
TGB and PGB since this casing cement bond willalsobea
major load bearing element in the wellhead system. The
casing setting depth has been chosen to have the casing
shoe within the limestone section and ensure a good
L.O.T for the 17 1/2” section.
Run and Cement 13-3/8” Casing (6590 ft MD BRT) -
The 13-3/8” intermediate casing will again be cemented
usinga single staged cementing operation. The available
data shows no lost circulation within this section. The
TOC is planned 500 ft above the 13-3/8 casing shoe at
6068 ft. The TOC will be changed to isolatethezonesthat
contain gas lostcirculation zones. The amountofcement
required for a particular job wouldbeonlydependenton
the drilling problems encountered while drilling the
section.
Run and Cement 9-5/8” Casing (8848 ft MD BRT) -
The casing setting depth for this 9-5/8” production
casing is in the shale region just before the over
pressured reservoir is encountered.Thiswouldfacilitate
change over to higher mud weights before entering the
over pressured reservoir. From analysis of the mud logs
a lost circulation zone is likely to be encountered in the
limestone region around 7300 ft would alsobesealedoff
behind the casing. The top of cement for this casing
interval will be placed 500ft above the expected lost
circulation zone using a two staged cementing method.
G. Well Control
The BOP stack will be installed after cementing the 20”
surface casing. The further hole sections would be drilled
with a 10 000 psi BOP in place. The rating of the BOP stack is
chosen on the basis of a worst case scenario of gas filling the
casing all the way to surface. This scenario gives the
expected surface pressure of 6150 psi which even with a
safety factor of 20% is covered by the BOP rating. Once the
10, 000psi BOP is latched on it will be pressure tested to its
working pressure limit before drilling later hole sections.
The 26” hole will be drilled without a riser to around 2658 ft
TVD BRT. From the available data the risk of encountering
shallow gas has been deemed to be ‘low’. However, shallow
seismic data, tidal current data with respect to tidal position
and possible gas cone degree size will have to be collected
before this decision is finalised.
If loses are seen while drilling the mud weightshouldfirst be
cut back to stop losing excessive mud in the fractured
formation. If heavy losses continue, which is expecteddueto
fractures or faults being “re-activated”and/oropeningin the
formation then heavy duty LCM pills should be added.
H. Drilling Mud Design
It has been intended to use seawater planned until placing
the riser and BOP to minimise environmental impact. Then
moving to a water based mud with KCl / polymer to drill
down to the setting depth of the 9-5/8” casing, to avoid any
instability problems. Losses are expected when drilling the
8-1/2” hole section within the fractured. From the past data
in well Betta-2 a maximum mud loss of 49 bbl/hr had been
documented. Even though the high loss rates were not
encountered while drilling the previous wells in Beta-field,
safety measures should be in place to deal with these
situations.
Casing and Completion Design
1. Completion design
An openhole Subsea completion is plannedforthe newwells
in Phase-I and II, as the reservoir is naturally fractured, well
consolidated with a very low matrix porosity and
permeability. The Subsea completion is designed to include
all the necessary completion jewellery like TRSSSV, gas lift
mandrels, telescopic joint, SSD, Hydraulic set permanent
packer with seal receptacle, top and bottom no-go nipples
and a wireline entry guide. The 4-1/2” completion string
would be RIH as an integrated assembly to set the Hydraulic
packer as deep as possible and to have the WEG just below
the 9-5/8” casing shoe depth. This wouldleavea complete 8-
1/2” openhole section across the reservoir. This is planned
to have the highest Kh and the maximum inflow area
available for flow. Though the formation is quite
consolidated, the tendency for sand production in the later
life of this field after water breakthrough cannot be
neglected. Due to lack of sieve analysis data, a detailed sand
control design could not be achieved at this stage.
The various Completion equipment are:
Tubular: The tubing sizes considered for different
sensitivities were 2-7/8”OD, 3-1/2” OD, 4” OD, 4-1/2”
OD, 5” OD and 5-1/2” OD. The criterion used toselectthe
optimum tubing size was based on the technical and
economic considerations. A reservoir pressure of
5500psi with a FTHP of 1000 psi and a maximum
expected skin of 15 with a variation in water cut from 0-
90% was considered the worst case scenario for this
analysis.
It can be seen from this analysis that increment in oil
flow rate by increasing the tubing size from 4-1/2” to 5”
is small as compared to the increment from 4” to 4-1/2”
tubing.
Down hole Safety Valve: A Tubing Retrievable Sub-
Surface Safety control Valve (TRSSSV) which provides
more advantages compared to the Wire line Retrievable
Safety Valve will be used. A TRSSVismorereliableasthis
leaves less chance of control system leaks, permits a full
bore passage and reduces wire line interventions. A
flapper-type valve will also be required for a temporary
lock-out.
Production packer: A 9-5/8” hydraulic set permanent
packer with seal receptacles will be used. This packer
will be run on the completion tubing.
Gas lift Mandrels: 3 x4-1/2” gas lift mandrels would be
run along with the planned completion for future
possible gas lifting operations.

SSD: A sliding side door is included in the completionfor
well killing operations for any possible workovers.
Telescopic Joint: This equipment isrequiredasapartof
the tubing to accommodate any expansion that will take
place during production.
Wire line entry guide: is used for smooth wire line
interventions without any hung-up.
Swell packer: This is a special type of packer which is
used as an open hole plug to reduce the water cut. This
will be required to plug off the watered out open hole
sections in future.
Tubing Hanger: The type of tubing hanger used is the
hydraulic type which provided the facilities for tubing
hanger setting and simultaneous wire line access to the
bore.
Subsea Xmas Tree: The production from the well
required a Xmas Tree with a 4-inch nominal bore. The
main valve assembly comprises of lower manual master
valve, upper master valve, hydraulic wing valve and
swab valve. These valves are fixed on the downstream
side then connected to theflowloop.Thepressurerateof
the wellhead equipment is 10000 psi.
Production Facilities
The potential production facilities available for the
development include:
A. Floating Production, Storage Facility
From the economic and technical benefits,a FPSOunitwould
be leased for this development. This unit which has a mono
hull construction type will be considered becauseitwill host
all the necessary facilities including the production,
processing, storage and export. The FPSO will be placed
between the glory holes and will receive productionvia flow
lines through the turret located near the bow of the vessel.
B. Surface Facilities for Production and Storage
Vessel - The FPSO will have a design life of 25 years with
a storage capacity of roughly 500000 barrels
representing about 7 to 9 days of production. The peak
liquid production to be handled by this FPSO will be
45000 barrels of oil per day and 13000 barrels of water
per day.
Test Separator - will be used for carrying out periodic
well test to collect reservoir data.
Multi-Stage Separator - The first stage separator (HP
separator) will provide the initial stage of the crude oil
separation. The incoming production fluids will be
heated and allowed to settle in the HP separator. Crude
from the first separator will be further separated in the
LP separator and then in the electrostatic treater. Here
remaining gas and water will be removed from the oil.
The sales quality oil thus produced will then flow to the
cargo tanks for storage until offloading. Water that has
been separated from the oil will be processed to remove
dissolved gasses.
Gas Compressors -SeparatedgasfromtheHPseparator
will be compressed to high pressure to allow it to be
injected at the subsea wellhead soastofacilitatetheflow
of the incoming production fluids(gaslift)laterinthelife
of the field.
Water Treatment - The produced water will then be
treated to meet a maximum concentration of 30mg/l of
oil-in-water specification before it can be disposed
overboard.
Utility Systems – Three main utility services will be
needed – heating,coolingandelectricity.Theheatingand
cooling will be providedbytheamedium,whichcontains
circulating hot fresh water for process heating and cold
fresh water for process and compressor cooling. The
heating for the hot water system will be achieved using
steam from the vessel’s boilers, and cooling for the cold
water system will be achieved by using seawater.
Seawater lift and injection system - During Phase-II,
sea water will be required for injectionintothereservoir
for pressure maintenance. Thus, three lift pumps and
coarse filters will be required to treattheseawatertothe
reservoir filtration requirements. De-aeration of the
seawater will also be carried out prior to injection to
prevent corrosion in the injection well.
Gas Generators - Three Gas generators will provide
electric power for the FPSO. Under normal conditions,
two of the three topsides High Voltage (HV) generators
will be on line. These will supply all topsides and vessel
consumers.
Flare and Vent System - There will be no continuous
flaring except during emergency conditions. Measures
will be evaluated to reduce atmospheric emission
wherever possible.
Safety Equipment - The vessel will be provided with a
minimum of 150 percent capacity in persons onboardin
lifeboats and 200 percent capacity in life rafts. Lifeboats
and life rafts will be located close to the temporary
refuge and on both sides of the vessel. Additional
lifeboat(s) and life rafts will beprovidedatothersuitable
locations on the vessel. All safety equipment will meet
international marine requirements.
Accommodation - The FPSO will provide
accommodation for about 50 to 60 people located
furthest away from the skids containing oil and gas.
Crude Oil Metering - The crude oil product will be
metered to custody transfer standards before offloading
to the off-take tankers. Quantity and quality
measurement of the liquid will be required to satisfy the
DTI legal requirements for accounting and reporting
purposes
Export Gas Metering - Prior to being exported to the
transportation system, dry associated gas will be
metered by an orifice plate meter to the fiscal standard.
Also, the quality of the gas will be compatible with the
dense phase flowing criteria.
Injection - Venturi flow meters will be installed on the
Xmas tree to monitor the injection volumes.
C. Subsea Production and Associated Facilities
Subsea trees and controls - Subsea Christmas trees
employed shall either be of vertical or horizontal
Christmas tree and these will be using the
manufacturers’ specifications. It will have the capability
for production with gas lift and water injection.
Subsea manifolds modules - Manifold modules will be
required to handle flow from the producing wells and
direct them into the production flow line headers,
pigging loops, flow meters and control systems. Subsea
manifolds will also be required for Phase-II of this
development plan. This will provide for the functions of
water injection and control.
Subsea control systems and umbilicals - The Subsea
control system is expected to be an open loop system
that is powered electro -hydraulically. The FPSO located
control equipment will be connected to the subsea

equipment (e.g. manifold) via electro-hydraulic control
umbilicals. Dynamic umbilicals will be used for control
from a FPSO. The control system will be designed to
supply sufficient hydraulic fluid high pressure (HP) and
low pressure (LP) to control the remotely operated
valves on the manifolds and Christmas trees at all drill
centers. Consideration will also be given to possible
future expansion requirements.
Subsea flow lines and risers - The flow lines and risers
for Beta-field will be designed to the APIstandards.They
will provide an unobstructed flow conduit between the
subsea facilities and the FPSO and will be fully
compatible with the intended service for the entire
design life. Valves will be installed to control flows for
both normal and emergencysituations. Design wise, it is
expected that no maintenance will be required during
the design life, except for external inspection using an
ROV and damage repair and operational pigging.
D. Production Export Systems
Offloading facilities - The FPSO will be designed such
that the offloading facilities will be located at the sternof
the vessel. A fiscal metering system will be incorporated
as an integrated package.
Oil export - Crude oil will be exported directly from the
FPSO to the shuttle tanker. The shuttle tanker will be
expected to be in the size range of 80,000 DWT. The
cargo storage capacity is expected to be around 480,000
bbls to meet peak productionstorageperiodofupto8-10
days.
Gas Export -Process gas export will be achieved via a
nominal 6” diameter pipeline from the FPSO to the 42”
Transport pipeline. This pipeline will be expected to be
about 30km in length and will be trenched. The
Transport pipeline will run some 730km to the landfall
site at Karsto.
Environmental Impact
A. Existing Environment
The measured sensitivities of the area are described below.
1. Any of this area has not been designated as a Special
Areas of Conservation (SAC)ora Special ProtectionArea
(SPC). The bottom sediment within this area is mainly
mud and sand.
2. Seabirds are present throughout the year in this area
except in April, September and December.
3. The fishing effort is classified as relatively low in this
part of Libyan water.
B. Risks and modification plans
Modification plans have been developed for some activities
which may cause environment impacts. The measured
environmental impacts are described below:
1. High or low frequency sound emit into the marine
environment during anchoring the drillingrigandwhile
drilling.
2. The emissions raised from the drilling and production
operations mainly from burning of well oil and gas
during the short term of drill stream test and diesel
combustion for power generation.
3. Oil spills and leaks may occur during various stages of
the field development activities.
4. The seabed would directly be disturbed from the
placement and the subsequent dragging of rig anchors.
But, the physical presence of anchors is expected to
create minor environmental impact on the benthos,
which should recover quickly once operations are
completed.
5. The cuttings contaminated from oil will be contained
and shipped to shore for reprocessing at a licensed site.
Abandonment
A. General
The current economicproductionfromBeta-fieldisexpected
to last 25 years. However, this might extend depending on
the success of Phase-II and Phase-III. Decommissioning of
the wells and facilities will be in accordance with the legal
requirements on the disposal of disused offshore
installation.
B. Subsea facilities
It is planned that even though the sizes of all sub-sea
pipelines are less than 10”, all those lines in trenching and
burial will be flushed,pluggedanddecommissionedin-place.
C. Wells
To achieve effective isolation of the reservoir; all wells will
be plugged and abandoned with two permanent barriers
from the seabed and casing string will be recovered.
D. FPSO
The leased FPSO of Beta-field will be disconnected from the
risers and collected by the leasing company. Any residual
hazardous waste arising from this will be taken to shoreand
treated at appropriate approved waste treatment facilities.
Costs
A. General
The cost implications for this development plan have been
divided into 2 broad aspects.
1. Capital Expenditure (Capex)
2. Operating Expenditure
A breakdown of the revenue and the project costs including
Opex, Capex and taxes is illustrated in figure 9.
B. Exploration, Appraisal and Development Costs
The key components of the Capex include the drilling, sub
sea completion and the 30km pipeline from the FPSO to the
transport system. There is no exploration and appraisal cost
covered in this report as these cost have been considered as
sunk cost. Due to the marginal nature of this field and the
significant level of data uncertainty, the Capital expenditure
will be phased into the three distinct phases.
A pie chart that shows the phases and the magnitude of
expense is shown below.
C. Operating Expenditure (Opex)
The Opex for this project can be considered high as this
includes the cost of leasing the FPSO facility. Other
components of the Opex include well maintenance,
insurance logistics and consumables. Pipeline usage tariff is
also included in the Opex.
D. Abandonment Cost
The abandonment cost for this project would cost $53.9
million in 2018 terms. This value comprises the cost of
plugging the 4 producers and the 2 injectors. It will also
include the cost of abandoning the pipelines. The FPSO

lease contract will be terminated. The leasor will be
responsible for its abandonment.
Opex
Capex
Tax
NCF
Opex Capex Tax NCF
Figure 9 – NCF as a proportion of the revenue.
Abandonment
Phase 3
Phase 2
Phase 1
Abandonment Phase 3 Phase 2 Phase 1
Figure 10 - Distribution of the Capex over the life of the
project
Operating personnel
Logistics and
consumables
Inspection and
maintenance
Wells Insurance
Tariff costs
Lease
Operating personnel Inspection and maintenance Logistics and consumables
Wells Insurance Tariff costs
Lease
Figure 11 – Showing the distribution of the Opex over
the life of the project
References:
[1] Reynolds D, (2006), 'High Performance Water Based
drilling fluid helps achieve early oil withlowercapital
expenditure' SPE 96798
[2] Svein Fantoft, (1992), 'Reservoir management of the
Oseberg field After four years productionhistory'SPE
25008
[3] Morton K, (2006), ‘’Selection and Evaluation criteria
for High Performance drilling fluids’' SPE 96342
[4] Chaudhry, A.U; (2004), “Oil Well Testing Handbook”;
USA; Elsevier;
[5] Jellah, A. I. et al., (2016), “Water Injection
Performance Calculations in Intisar 103A Oil Field,
Libya” , Paper presented at ICCPGE conference, Al-
mergib University, Libya, ,
[6] Dye William et al, (2005), ‘New Water-Based Mud
Balances High Performance Drilling and
Environmental Compliance’ SPE 92367
[7] Dawber M et al, (2005), ‘Moving from Wire-line
Logging to Logging-While-Drilling in an Aggressive
North Sea Drilling and Formation Evaluation
Program-A Case Study of the Brenda Accumulation’
SPE 96716
[8] Du K. E, Pai S. (2005), ‘Optimising the development of
Blake field under tough economic and environmental
conditions’ , SPE64714
[9] Blikra H, Andersen R, (2002), ‘Cost-effective Subsea
drilling operation on the smallest Norwegian field
development’ , SPE 74508
[10] Lanquentin B. ‘More Than 30 Years Experience with
FPSO’s and offloading techniques’ 2005 IPTC 10901
[11] Stenger BA. (2006), ‘Extracting value from a dormant
small offshore oil field: The Okwori Field Case’ , SPE
98875
[12] Maclean A. ‘Enhancing marginal Field Development
economics by leasing operated production facilities.
2005 SPE 93507
[13] Stephen KD ‘Modelling and flow simulations of a
north sea turbidite reservoir: Sensitivities and
Upscaling’ 2002 SPE 78292
[14] Page Paul, Chris Greaves ‘Options for the recycling of
drill cuttings’ 2003 SPE 80583
[15] Toole ST, Grist DM ‘Oil & Gas recovery behaviour in
the UKCS basins’ 2003 SPE 83982
[16] Morton K., Bomar B, (2005), ‘Selectionand evaluation
criteria for high-performance drilling fluids’ , SPE
96342.
[17] . Holder Barry, J. et al, (1980 ), ‘Drilling Fluids for
Highly Deviated Wells in North Sea Petroleum
Drilling’ SPE 10860
[18] Hauge R et al, (2003), ‘Modeling Facies Bodies and
Petro-physical Trents in Turbidite Reservoirs’ SPE
840
[19] Alyan, M., Martin, J., & Irwin, D. (2015, November 9).
Field Development Plan Optimization for Tight
Carbonate Reservoirs. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:10.2118/177695-MS
[20] Safran, E. M., & Al Ansari, S. I. (2020, May 4). Flow
Assurance Risks Impact on Kuwait Offshore Field
Development Plans. Offshore TechnologyConference.
doi:10.4043/30851-MS
[21] Abdalla, O. S., Shawky, M., Badawy, O., Maarouf, M., &
kamal, Y. (2015, September 14).ContinuesUpdatefor
PetroSilah Full Fields Development Plan Results of
Production and Reserves. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:10.2118/175807-MS
[22] Teh, Y. H., Theseira, K., Abdul Karim, A. H., Hashim, N.
S., Yakob, A. R., Musa, A. S., … Sykahar, M. W. (2008,
January 1). Preparing a Gas Field Development Plan :
Tangga Barat Cluster Gas Project. International
Petroleum Technology Conference.
doi:10.2523/IPTC-12488-MS
[23] Ojeke, A., Itotoi, I. H., Nnamdi, D., Umurhohwo, J., &
Benjamin, O. (2011, January 1). A Robust Approachto
Field Development Plan Integrating Multi dynamic
Reservoir Models with Surface Network. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/150735-MS
[24] Tahir, S., Al Kindi, S., Ghorayeb, K., Haryanto, E., Shah,
A. R., Yersaiyn, S. … Ali, S. (2019, November11).ATop
- Down View of Field Development Plans, Integrated

Reservoir Performance and ProductionSustainability
Assurance. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/197379-MS
[25] Sierra, F., Monge, A., Leon, S., Vasquez, F., Garcia, J.,
Llerena, G., & Borjas, J. (2015, November 18). A Real
Case Study: Field Development Plan Evaluations for
Oso Field. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/177071-MS
[26] Vilela, M. J., Marin, P. R., Rodrigo, M., Medina, A.,
Limeres, A. C., & Mata Petit, F. E. (2007, January 1).
Building The Field Development Plan For A New Gas
Field, Located In Algeria, Reggane Trend. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/108831-MS
[27] Denney, D. (2011, October 1). Offshore-Field
Development Plan Changed From Steel Structures to
Artificial Islands. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/1011-0065-JPT
[28] Kasap, E., Sanza, G. J., Ali, M. I., Friedel, T., Waheed, A.,
Sukmana, A. Y. … Rasol, M. N. (2006, January 1). Field
Development Plan by Optioneering Process Sensitive
to Reservoir and Operational Constraints and
Uncertainties. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/101556-MS

OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Similar to OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (20)

More from ijtsrd

More from ijtsrd (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT PLAN